In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

[snip

What I find interesting, too, is that the CW/data parts of the bands are

always

referred to as "exclusive CW" with no mention that all of them on HF are

also

shared by data modes. In fact, there is very little mention of data

modes at

all.


Right! It's apparently codified in the code-banner's rulebook- Say nor
do anything that will in any way interfere with The Agenda. And
acknowledging that there are NO exclusive CW HF subbands is a primary
part of it. In fact, it';s clear that they would like to do completely
away with *ll* subbands. Hey, why not SSB yakkers wall to wall, like
it is "uop there" above 27 mhz?

It IS curuois that they jump from "Hey why don't you Luddites get
out of the 19th century and jumo on board our Advanced Digital Train,
to "Lets do away with all subbands and give everyone with the mildest
of itnersts all privileges everywhere to yak into a microphone"!!!

Can you say obfuscation???

Dick,

Can you say "You're distorting the facts"???

Where are any facts distorted, Carl?

Both I and Bill Sohl have repeatedly stated the the ONLY agenda
for NCI is to eliminate the code TEST


Which means that Dick could not have been talking about you, Bill or NCI
when
he wrote of a "code-banner's rulebook" - whatever the heck that was
supposed to
mean.


... you will notice that NCI's
Petition for Rulemaking doesn't attempt to modify the sub-bands,
expand SSB allotments, or anything of the sort.


Exactly!

Note: The paper ("Amateur Radio in the 21st Century") in question is not
official NCVEC policy at this time, so in this post I will change all
references to "the KL7CC paper" since he is the principle author.

This thread is meant to be about that

KL7CC

paper - particularly the parts
that
do *not* involve the code test. Dumping the code test is a completley
different
thing from widening the 'phone/image subbands.

The

KL7CC

paper is not a group controlled by NCI, they are a completely
different entity.

But they ARE a group calling for some things that I find a little
disturbing.

And this IS something I got my chops busted about earlier with what
seemed to me to be a simple statement of fact. I'll state it again
paraphrased:

The removal of the Morse code test is the removal of knowledge required
to get a ARS license. Thos who believe that less knowledge should be
necessary to get a license can only be heartened by this event. There
will be a move towards further reductions in the knowledge needed for a
license.

lessee he

(from

KL7CC:

One of the primary goals of the new license we are going to propose
is a true entry-level ticket. Limited power, limited frequencies,
but still useful, with enough of the essence of Amateur Radio to
attract beginners and show them what lies ahead when they upgrade.
Simpler exam. WAIT! - - WAIT! - - WHAT WAS THAT??!!

Yes, I said simpler exam. Hopefully 20 questions. Aimed at a young
person aged 12 or more. That means a 6th grade education. Also fits
teens, high schoolers, home schoolers. You know, fresh ideas, new
blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to
put on glasses – what a concept! 20 questions, simple enough to get
someone started in a responsible way, pointed in the right direction,
all that stuff.

Well what do we have here? A proposal for a simpler exam? Certainly
looks like it.

Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.

I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Its even more charming that
this new, fresh blood will be able to see their radios without glasses.
I've worn glasses since I was in second grade.

One of the things that bugs me a little about that paper is the little digs it
tosses in - like that one. They're subtle but they convey an undertone of
insult.

I guess the

(authors of the KL7CC paper)

doesn't really want me to be a ham.

Nor me, nor a lot of us.

Next:

Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming
that the idea of a beginner’s class license is even accepted at all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it
is now to the basic license. It may be named “Communicator� or
simply left as Technician. Let’s assume it gets the name
“Communicator�. All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay
for
a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.

Exactly!

That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.

Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's OK to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made!

Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should know how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake in the
paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the

KL7CC paper)

So, there are no “Morse code haters� on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no “black plan� from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses – what a concept!

and:

A few final words:

There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?

See what I mean about undertone?

Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn’t that be an odd reason for doing what they are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that for just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the form, sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at all. They
thought I needed "help".

At first I thought it was a joke - after all, the licensee still did all the
work of filling out the form and mailing it. If there was something wrong, FCC
would kick it right back - but the procedure for a simple renewal is so basic
that anyone who couldn't figure it out from the instructions on the form
probably shouldn't have the license anyway.

But I did some asking around and found it was real!
I wonder how many hams thought it was some sort of official letter and ponied
up the $5.

Instead, I filled out the form and sent it to FCC. And I swore W5YI would never
get a nickel from me.

And to make sure that they insult other hams who don't do things like
they think hams should do things:

Oh, pardon me – you always build everything from scratch? Great!
Who, exactly, are you going to talk to? Most of the rest of us opt
for the practical approach, and purchase a rig from one of the several
companies that cater to hams. If there are no manufacturers, then
there are no new rigs. Hard to carry on a QSO if no one is there.

What this has to do with the matter at hand is beyond me, except that I
think that they dont like homebrewers very much.

Ahem.

I'm very impressed that Morse code testing, by extrapolation, is going
to destroy the manufacturers. Talk about your conspiracies!!

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?

Who, me?

My final analysis of this piece is that the authors take a very
condescending and superior tone towards those they disagree with, take a
few gratuitous potshots at some other "outcasts" thay don't like, and
finally, support a radical simplification of the qualifications needed
to get on the air at HF frequencies.

and... and....

(last quote from the article):

Morse will probably retain most of it’s exclusive band segments,
at least for now. We are not addressing this issue at this time.
This may change in the future. Several countries no longer have
exclusive segments, but depend instead on voluntary band plans.
In fact, our 160-meter band works this way today, with surprisingly
few problems.

Ya gotta wonder how much time these dudes spend on 160.

LIB! there is is! the door is creaking open! here comes the foot.

Back to you Jim

It's the old incrementalism game. A little bit here, a little bit there.

If the 'Novice' subbands are to be 'refarmed', I say they should be reused
primarily for digital modes, unencumbered by most of the occupied bandwidth
and
bit/symbol rate limitations of today's rules. Maybe have a flat rule that
the
mode has to have occupied bandwidth under, say, 10 kHz. Proper
documentation as
already required by FCC rules, of course. Wanna try out some digital voice
ideas, high speed data, "PSK-3100", Pactor 3, or whatever? Just fit 'em
into 10
kHz and have fun.

Better yet, leave 'em alone.

It would be nice if you could stick to the facts, but that doesn't
suit YOUR agenda, does it?

Which facts? Dick didn't accuse you or NCI of anything in that post from
what I can see.

The fact remains that the

(KL7CC)

paper contains some inaccuracies like the
reference to "exclusive CW subbands". Another inaccuracy is the claim that
the
General and Tech used the same written test up until the Tech lost its code
test
(the writtens were actually split almost 4 years earlier).


[remainder of Dick's inaccurate statements and inuendo deleted]


Unless I'm mistaken, he wasn't talking about you, Carl.

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl

are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save
removal of the Morse code test)

And they've been very clear about that.

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.

You got my point exactly.

The wheels are already in motion.

They've been in motion for years and years. I put the change back about 1975.
No single change has been very big but the end result is enormous.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Some snippage

paper is not a group controlled by NCI, they are a completely
different entity.

But they ARE a group calling for some things that I find a little
disturbing.

And this IS something I got my chops busted about earlier with what
seemed to me to be a simple statement of fact. I'll state it again
paraphrased:

The removal of the Morse code test is the removal of knowledge required
to get a ARS license. Thos who believe that less knowledge should be
necessary to get a license can only be heartened by this event. There
will be a move towards further reductions in the knowledge needed for a
license.

lessee he

(from


KL7CC:


One of the primary goals of the new license we are going to propose
is a true entry-level ticket. Limited power, limited frequencies,
but still useful, with enough of the essence of Amateur Radio to
attract beginners and show them what lies ahead when they upgrade.
Simpler exam. WAIT! - - WAIT! - - WHAT WAS THAT??!!

Yes, I said simpler exam. Hopefully 20 questions. Aimed at a young
person aged 12 or more. That means a 6th grade education. Also fits
teens, high schoolers, home schoolers. You know, fresh ideas, new
blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to
put on glasses – what a concept! 20 questions, simple enough to get
someone started in a responsible way, pointed in the right direction,
all that stuff.

Well what do we have here? A proposal for a simpler exam? Certainly
looks like it.


Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

I'm still not so hot on the idea.


Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.


I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Were you "average" Jim? I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th
grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of
any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th
grader thing is bothersome.


Its even more charming that
this new, fresh blood will be able to see their radios without glasses.
I've worn glasses since I was in second grade.


One of the things that bugs me a little about that paper is the little digs it
tosses in - like that one. They're subtle but they convey an undertone of
insult.


I guess the


(authors of the KL7CC paper)


doesn't really want me to be a ham.


Nor me, nor a lot of us.


Next:


Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming
that the idea of a beginner’s class license is even accepted at all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it
is now to the basic license. It may be named “Communicator� or
simply left as Technician. Let’s assume it gets the name
“Communicator�. All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay

for

a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.


Exactly!


That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's OK to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.


And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made!

hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^)


Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should know how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake in the
paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the


KL7CC paper)


So, there are no “Morse code haters� on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no “black plan� from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):


You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses – what a concept!

and:


A few final words:

There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?


See what I mean about undertone?

I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too!



Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn’t that be an odd reason for doing what they are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!


If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that for just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the form, sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at all. They
thought I needed "help".

Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^)

snippage

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?


Who, me?

Yeah, you!!

more snippage



I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl


are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save
removal of the Morse code test)


And they've been very clear about that.


That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.


You got my point exactly.

I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the
proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he
or she had read and understood part 97. Why not extrapolate that to the
whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh,
we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of
anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses!

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're
really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

I'm still not so hot on the idea.

All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As it stands
right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF.

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.

I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Were you "average" Jim?

In some things yes, in others no.

I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th
grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of
any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th
grader thing is bothersome.

Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is quite
different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere.

Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus and test
should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the
sixth-grade level in order to understand the material".

Next:


Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming
that the idea of a beginner’s class license is even accepted at all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it
is now to the basic license. It may be named “Communicator� or
simply left as Technician. Let’s assume it gets the name
“Communicator�. All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay

for

a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.


Exactly!


That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's OK
to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made!

hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^)

"They remember a past that never was"

Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In
March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for
General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should know
how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake in
the paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the


KL7CC paper)


So, there are no “Morse code haters� on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no “black plan� from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses – what a concept!

and:

A few final words:
There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?

See what I mean about undertone?

I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too!

I recycle.

Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn’t that be an odd reason for doing what they are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my
license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that for
just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the form,
sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had
renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at all.
They
thought I needed "help".

Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^)

Maybe?

snippage

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?


Who, me?

Yeah, you!!

More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"?

more snippage

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl
are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save
removal of the Morse code test)

And they've been very clear about that.

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.

You got my point exactly.

I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the
proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he
or she had read and understood part 97.

I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't believe it
the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!!

Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service. Didn't
work very well.

Why not extrapolate that to the
whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh,
we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of
anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses!

Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that approach
is valid for the rules, why not the whole test?

But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime author
admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the license he
holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that fact. As
dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're
really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

I'm still not so hot on the idea.

All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As it
stands
right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF.

I agree and of all the licensing decisions made under 98-143,
the ending of Novice was, IMHO, not a good idea. That said,
I think once the dust settles from the code "test" issue, then
perhaps ARRL may wish to take a top down look at licensing,
licensing requirements and the concurrent privileges associated
with each.

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.

I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Were you "average" Jim?

In some things yes, in others no.

I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th
grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of
any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th
grader thing is bothersome.

Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is quite
different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere.

Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus and
test
should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the
sixth-grade level in order to understand the material".

Next:


Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming
that the idea of a beginner's class license is even accepted at all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it
is now to the basic license. It may be named "Communicator" or
simply left as Technician. Let's assume it gets the name
"Communicator". All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay

for

a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.


Exactly!


That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's
OK
to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of
the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made!

hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^)

"They remember a past that never was"

What are they remembering that wasn't? The tech written was the same as
the General as someone wrote above up to 1987 as you note below.

Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In
March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for
General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should
know
how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake
in
the paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the


KL7CC paper)


So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no "black plan" from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses - what a concept!

and:

A few final words:
There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?

See what I mean about undertone?

I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too!

I recycle.

Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn't that be an odd reason for doing what they
are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such
great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my
license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that
for
just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the
form,
sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had
renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at
all.
They
thought I needed "help".

Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^)

Maybe?

snippage

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?


Who, me?

Yeah, you!!

More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"?

more snippage

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill
Sohl
are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save
removal of the Morse code test)

And they've been very clear about that.

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as
the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.

You got my point exactly.

I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the
proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he
or she had read and understood part 97.

I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't believe
it
the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!!

Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service.
Didn't
work very well.

The real problem with CB at the time and to this day was the "buy it
anywhere"
ability at prices net to nothing. Even in the early 70s CBs were less than
$50. Same is true today for FRS...but the good thing about FRS is the
lack of any real DX ability.

Why not extrapolate that to the
whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh,
we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of
anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses!

Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that
approach
is valid for the rules, why not the whole test?

But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime
author
admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the license
he
holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that
fact. As
dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal.

One problem we have discused before is the stupid focus on some
testing on elements of the rules that very few hams ever engage in...space
communications for example. Better to test on what we really want
most hams to be knowledgeable on that VEC qualifications, etc.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're
really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

I'm still not so hot on the idea.

All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As it
stands
right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF.

I agree and of all the licensing decisions made under 98-143,
the ending of Novice was, IMHO, not a good idea.

But...but...Bill, the FCC thought it was a good idea! Are you saying
FCC made a mistake? ;-)

That said,
I think once the dust settles from the code "test" issue, then
perhaps ARRL may wish to take a top down look at licensing,
licensing requirements and the concurrent privileges associated
with each.

KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper?

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.

I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Were you "average" Jim?

In some things yes, in others no.

I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th
grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of
any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th
grader thing is bothersome.

Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is quite
different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere.

Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus and
test
should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the
sixth-grade level in order to understand the material".

Next:


Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming
that the idea of a beginner's class license is even accepted at all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it
is now to the basic license. It may be named "Communicator" or
simply left as Technician. Let's assume it gets the name
"Communicator". All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay

for

a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.


Exactly!


That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's
OK
to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of
the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made!

hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^)

"They remember a past that never was"

What are they remembering that wasn't? The tech written was the same as
the General as someone wrote above up to 1987 as you note below.

Direct quote:

"Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM."

That sentence, and the lack of other clarification, says that the
General and Tech writtens were the same right up to when the Tech lost
its code test in 1991. That's simply not the case - the written was
split almost 4 years earlier.

Note that the paper wants to give *all* Techs a free upgrade to
General! It also ignores the fact that any Tech who got that license
before March 1987 is already able to upgrade to General with no
additional testing. And it's been that way since April 15, 2000. And
that's not a giveaway because those folks *did* pass the same written
as Generals.

Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In
March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for
General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should
know
how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake
in
the paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the

KL7CC paper)

So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no "black plan" from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses - what a concept!

and:

A few final words:
There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?

See what I mean about undertone?

I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too!

I recycle.

Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn't that be an odd reason for doing what they
are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such
great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my
license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that
for
just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the
form,
sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had
renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at
all.
They
thought I needed "help".

Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^)

Maybe?

snippage

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?


Who, me?

Yeah, you!!

More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"?

more snippage

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill
Sohl
are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save
removal of the Morse code test)

And they've been very clear about that.

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as
the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.

You got my point exactly.

I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the
proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he
or she had read and understood part 97.

I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't believe
it
the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!!

Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service.
Didn't
work very well.

The real problem with CB at the time and to this day was the "buy it
anywhere"
ability at prices net to nothing. Even in the early 70s CBs were less than
$50.

I never saw them that cheap, but then again, I wasn't looking.

But what you are effectively saying, Bill, is that the real problem
with cb was "lack of investment" by many who used it. They did not
take it seriously because they had invested only a few dollars and
practically no time or effort into getting set up.

Does that mean if cb sets had cost, say, $500 back then instead of
$50, that service would not have become such a mess?

Almost sounds like a new version of "what isn't worked for isn't
valued"

Same is true today for FRS...but the good thing about FRS is the
lack of any real DX ability.

Why not extrapolate that to the
whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh,
we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of
anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses!

Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that
approach
is valid for the rules, why not the whole test?

But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime
author
admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the license
he
holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that
fact. As
dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal.

One problem we have discused before is the stupid focus on some
testing on elements of the rules that very few hams ever engage in...space
communications for example. Better to test on what we really want
most hams to be knowledgeable on that VEC qualifications, etc.

It used to seem to me that the one thing we could all agree on was
that the basic regulations (not talking about the fine-print stuff,
just the basics) were one subject that absolutely had to be tested
for. But the KL7CC paper suggests doing away with most of that!
Surreal...

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All
they're
really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

I'm still not so hot on the idea.

All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As
it
stands
right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF.

I agree and of all the licensing decisions made under 98-143,
the ending of Novice was, IMHO, not a good idea.

But...but...Bill, the FCC thought it was a good idea! Are you saying
FCC made a mistake? ;-)

Please point to any statement I have made that indicates
I agree with every FCC decision. :-) :-)

That said,
I think once the dust settles from the code "test" issue, then
perhaps ARRL may wish to take a top down look at licensing,
licensing requirements and the concurrent privileges associated
with each.

KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper?

No, is it on a web site?.

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade
education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.

I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Were you "average" Jim?

In some things yes, in others no.

I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th
grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of
any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th
grader thing is bothersome.

Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is
quite
different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere.

Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus
and
test
should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the
sixth-grade level in order to understand the material".

Next:


Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC
budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen,
assuming
that the idea of a beginner's class license is even accepted at
all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what
it
is now to the basic license. It may be named "Communicator" or
simply left as Technician. Let's assume it gets the name
"Communicator". All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the
element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and
pay

for

a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a
Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than
he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.


Exactly!


That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If
it's
OK
to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most
of
the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were
made!

hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^)

"They remember a past that never was"

What are they remembering that wasn't? The tech written was the same as
the General as someone wrote above up to 1987 as you note below.

Direct quote:

"Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM."

That sentence, and the lack of other clarification, says that the
General and Tech writtens were the same right up to when the Tech lost
its code test in 1991. That's simply not the case - the written was
split almost 4 years earlier.

OK and understood.

Note that the paper wants to give *all* Techs a free upgrade to
General! It also ignores the fact that any Tech who got that license
before March 1987 is already able to upgrade to General with no
additional testing. And it's been that way since April 15, 2000. And
that's not a giveaway because those folks *did* pass the same written
as Generals.

IF (and it is a big IF) the FCC ever entertains some type of
license changes of the type being discussed there will be two
choices as to the affected hams already licensed. You can repeat
the 1968 approach and take away privileges or you can give
some people a "pass" while still impacting all new hams or
hams not already licensed at a particular level. Time will tell.

Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written.
In
March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B
for
General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code
test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper
should
know
how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual
mistake
in
the paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the
glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the

KL7CC paper)

So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no "black plan" from the ARRL, no anything. Just
some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper
for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses - what a concept!

and:

A few final words:
There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?

See what I mean about undertone?

I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too!

I recycle.

Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our
wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn't that be an odd reason for doing what
they
are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't*
want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The
person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're
such
great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when
my
license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying
that
for
just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the
form,
sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and
had
renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at
all.
They
thought I needed "help".

Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^)

Maybe?

snippage

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there
are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?


Who, me?

Yeah, you!!

More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"?

more snippage

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill
Sohl
are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license
(save
removal of the Morse code test)

And they've been very clear about that.

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers
as
the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.

You got my point exactly.

I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the
proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how
he
or she had read and understood part 97.

I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't
believe
it
the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!!

Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service.
Didn't
work very well.

The real problem with CB at the time and to this day was the "buy it
anywhere"
ability at prices net to nothing. Even in the early 70s CBs were less
than
$50.

I never saw them that cheap, but then again, I wasn't looking.

But what you are effectively saying, Bill, is that the real problem
with cb was "lack of investment" by many who used it. They did not
take it seriously because they had invested only a few dollars and
practically no time or effort into getting set up.

Does that mean if cb sets had cost, say, $500 back then instead of
$50, that service would not have become such a mess?

Probably because the sets wouldn't have found such a wide
market of accepatance for that price. Clearly the other
factor was the "no license" other than send in the
application approach.

Almost sounds like a new version of "what isn't worked for isn't
valued"

Cute, but no cigar.

Same is true today for FRS...but the good thing about FRS is the
lack of any real DX ability.

Why not extrapolate that to the
whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By
gosh,
we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of
anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses!

Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that
approach
is valid for the rules, why not the whole test?

But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime
author
admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the
license
he
holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that
fact. As
dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal.

One problem we have discused before is the stupid focus on some
testing on elements of the rules that very few hams ever engage
in...space
communications for example. Better to test on what we really want
most hams to be knowledgeable on that VEC qualifications, etc.

It used to seem to me that the one thing we could all agree on was
that the basic regulations (not talking about the fine-print stuff,
just the basics) were one subject that absolutely had to be tested
for. But the KL7CC paper suggests doing away with most of that!
Surreal...

I'll have to find that paper and read it.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper?

No, is it on a web site?.

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/

Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"

You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on that.
What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should happen to
the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl wrote:

A whole litany of stuff snipped

I'll have to find that paper and read it.

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

I think it is pretty important to read it, Bill. It is a very
interesting piece.

One of the emost interesting parts is that while the NCVEC claims it is
not "official" policy, the name of the doc is NCVECplan.doc.

and:

"First, who is this committee, this “Gang of Four”? Who are these people,
and who elected them as “God”? They are the NCVEC “Rules Committee”.
This group of 4 persons consists of: Fred Maia, W5YI, John Johnstone, W3BE,
Scott Neustatder, W4WW, and myself, Jim Wiley, KL7CC.

So this isn't official, but it comes from the committee, it's namedwhat
it is. But they tell us it isn't...................

Just one of the reasons that a few of us are kind of uneasy about the thing.

It takes a few gratuitous potshots at those who believe in the Morse
Code test, as well as a patricularly bizzare dig at homebrewers.

Oddly enough, it wants to encourage people who do not wear glasses to
join the hobby. That little jab was almost certainly at people who do
not wear bifocals, but as a wearer of glasses since the second grade, I
can tell you it was neither funny or appropriate.

It proposes HF access after taking a 20 question quiz that is passable
by an "average" 6th grader.

It proposes the applicant sign a statement that they have read and
understood part 97 - This is a hoot! I envision a "click here" like we
get when we install software and the terms of use screen pops up. And we
all read all of those, don't we? 8^)

It wants to take out "some of the math" two or more of the theory
questions because "we aren't making engineers - yet"

It offers some questions like:

"What do you think is better for our hobby – lots of enthusiastic
newcomers, or an ever-declining number of increasingly older hams?"

Let's see, that sounds an awful lot like a "Have you quit beating your
wife?" sort of question.

"Morse will probably retain most of it’s exclusive band segments, at
least for now. We are not addressing this issue at this time. This
may change in the future."

I give them half a point for being half honest - whoops, maybe only a
quarter point for being only half right! Just how many "exclusive band
segments" are there for Morse? Which is telling me that as soon as they
have their way with getting the qualifications reduced for HF access,
they will be going after getting the narrowband segments opened up for
SSB. and if that isn't what they mean to do, why would they put that in
the piece?

Their proposal to "slide" the bands down to take over the Novice
segments and give the upper part of the bands to the "communicators"
isn't removing anything from the data bands is it?

Finally, in one of the most strange bits of reasoning I have ever seen:

"All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the
Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the
Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as
they can, thus becoming General class licensees."

They are telling us that the existing technicians will study for, test
for, and pay for something that they will get even if they flunk the
test, or not take it in the first place!!!!!!!!

Someone who make a statement like this has no place throwing out the
gratuitous insults they make towards those who believe that the Morse
tests should be retained. It is plain stupid, can't sugar coat that one!

Some things I wonder about:

Is a person who is granted HF access on a 20 question very simple test
that the hypothetical average 6th grader going to be all that worried
about staying within the allotment given him or here? My guess is that
they will not be too worried about straying outside their allocations.
It happens already with generals in the Extra segments.

Will they be amenable to OO's? some will, and some probably won't. It
won't take too many to make a mess.

If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect if a plan like this is adopted,
there will be a rush of people getting the lowest level license. They
will be on HF, and won't feel much reason to upgrade. They will very
likely spread out from thier allotted segment of band, and talk where
they like.

"You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their
radios without having to put It pon (sic) glasses – what a concept!"

Sometimes fresh ideas are not what we may want them to be!


Will I be wrong? Great Gawd I hope so! But it will be an interesting
social experiment to see if we will improve a service by lowering the
entrance requirements.

In the meantime, I'll be here, wearing my glasses, homebrewing, and
enjoying myself.

My favorite quotes:

"There are no black helicopters."

"This is not a plot by ARRL or Fred (W5YI) or anyone else to sell more
books, antennas, radios, or (fill in the blank)."

"There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no “black plan” from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer."

Thing one:

Why do they go on so about conspiracies?

Thing two:

With a few notable exceptions, I think that those of us who wish to see
Morse CW testing continued DO care very much about our great hobby. I
take exception to the apparent belief on some NCTA's that we do not.

Final analysis:

If this isn't NCVEC opinion, they should get it off the title and quit
referring to it so much. This is like the person that says "not to
interrupt you as they interrupt you. If it isn't the NCVEC, then don't
talk about the NCVEC. But it is.

What's with the gratuitous potshots? Want to turn people off? Start
accusing us of seeing black helicopters or needing "It pon glasses" as
if it is something bad to wear them (maybe we're genetically inferior?)
Or even better, infer that the only people who care about Ham Radio are
those who want the code test removed.

This is a bold step, to improve something by radically simplifying the
requirements for admission. I haven't seen it work yet, but perhaps
there is something different here?

- Mike KB3EIA -